HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Sep 05, 2006, 02:41 AM
Registered User
Norfolk, England
Joined Sep 2001
7,760 Posts
Chris,
With the way F3/F3A set up the dihedral, there didn't seem much point noting it on the plan. One advantage of CAD design is the degree of accuracy that can be achieved in areas like this. Unfortunately, although I can draw to three decimal points of an inch, I doubt that I can cut that accurately.

The big disadvantage of prototype builds, no instructions. What rigging details do you feel could be shown on the plan? A couple of sketches? Some notes?

That's the general idea mate, use the thrust angles shown.

I may be able to draw accurately, but that doesn't prevent typos. They still happen with frightening regularity.

On the aluminium theme, you have to remember that this was not a service aircraft. As a privately owned machine, it would have been well looked after and probably kept clean and shiny. Therefore, highly polished aluminium panels are more than likely. On the other hand, if you prefer the look of dull, weathered aluminium, I find a spray with matt varnish works well.

Pete
PETERRAKE is offline Find More Posts by PETERRAKE
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Sep 05, 2006, 05:17 PM
No Wind
65Chevelle's Avatar
Long Island
Joined Jul 2006
292 Posts
Pete: The reason I like to know the actual dihedral amount is for when I'm installing the root ribs on the wings. Yes, the F3 worked well as I used it to set the dihedral. Maybe its just me.
The comment on the rigging was based solely on me not being able to find any pictures of the obscure 1910 Nieuport Mono. Again, all I have to go on is your original build. I wasn't sure if the rigging was on the top and bottom wing surfaces or just the top. I see in your build that it is both. I was thinking that a profile showing the rigging would be beneficial (front and side) especially on a model with very little reference material available. That, or even a side note indicating rigging points?
As for the dimension typo, I wasn't sure if you wanted me to comment on that sort of thing or not.
I haven't decided on the aluminum finish, still have some time. The shiney alum is extremely reflective and would be troublesome on a nice sunny day. That, and making a run to a toy store to look for spoked wheels is on my list of things to do.
Thanks Pete.
Chris
65Chevelle is offline Find More Posts by 65Chevelle
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 05, 2006, 05:52 PM
Registered User
Norfolk, England
Joined Sep 2001
7,760 Posts
Chris,
Oh yes mate, if you spot an error, most definitely mention it. It brings it to my attention and makes me look like a good guy when I correct it. (lol)

There are actually lower rigging points marked on the plan already. However, I can't actually think of any plane from this era, especially one with wing warping, that doesn't have cables both top and bottom of the wing. They aren't always the same underneath as on top, but they're usually there. Anyway, since you've mentioned it, I'll do something to make it more obvious.

A simple way to mark the root rib angle is to lay the spar against the F3/F3A drawing on the plan and mark it with a pen - hence the instruction to that effect.

Pete
PETERRAKE is offline Find More Posts by PETERRAKE
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 05, 2006, 06:05 PM
No Wind
65Chevelle's Avatar
Long Island
Joined Jul 2006
292 Posts
Okay Pete.
As for the rigging points, I stand corrected. Yes they are shown. The routing of the rigging would still be a question though.......at least for me.
Yes, that is one way.....to mark the spar, but I found it much easier to use the F3/F3A and stand it perpendicular to the rib. The angle of the rib is then fool proof.
Chris
65Chevelle is offline Find More Posts by 65Chevelle
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 05, 2006, 07:50 PM
Registered User
vintage1's Avatar
East Anglia, UK
Joined Sep 2002
29,703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PETERRAKE
I can't actually think of any plane from this era, especially one with wing warping, that doesn't have cables both top and bottom of the wing.
Pete
Yep. Landing and flying wires. The landing ones stop the wings foldng DOWN when you have a hard landing, and the flying wires stop them folding UP.

I dunno if I am talking through my but it seems to me that for whatever reason - fashion, because birds did it, or beacuse these things copied kites and boat sails, they went for ultra thin undercambered sections in those days. There simply wasn't enough room to put a decent spar of any depth and stiffness in. so wires it was...

IIRC the first deep spar machine of note was the Fokker DVIII. But the war was lost and it wasn't really till the need for speed and a bit more aerodynamics showed that e.g the racing monoplane seaplanes in the later 20's could get away without wire or strut bracing..and then WWII ended the era of the strut or wire almost completely.
vintage1 is offline Find More Posts by vintage1
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 07, 2006, 06:54 PM
No Wind
65Chevelle's Avatar
Long Island
Joined Jul 2006
292 Posts
Pete: Another question for you. The UC is shown using 16 and 20 SWG. I've sourced the US equivalents pretty closely. I just bent up the various bits and am wondering, could you have meant 18 SWG? The 16 SWG looks a little too large compared to the 20. Pic attached.
Also, the metric dimensions are driving me nuts. We don't use metric very often here in the States. You show 2mm liteply for F1, F2 and battery tray; while the horns are 1/32" ply. Closest I can find to 2mm is 1/16". I guess standardizing the units would appreciated.
More pics to follow.
Chris
65Chevelle is offline Find More Posts by 65Chevelle
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 07, 2006, 07:19 PM
No Wind
65Chevelle's Avatar
Long Island
Joined Jul 2006
292 Posts
The fuse has been started. I actually lost several pictures I had taken when I copied them to CD. Ughhh.
My job has gotten quite hectic so the build will continue but at a little slower pace than usual.
I also want to go to Rhinebeck this weekend. Cutting into my build time but I haven't been to the Rhinebeck show since 1981.
Chris




boy, I really can't spell
65Chevelle is offline Find More Posts by 65Chevelle
Last edited by 65Chevelle; Sep 07, 2006 at 09:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 07, 2006, 09:05 PM
Neophyte hacker
portablevcb's Avatar
Albuquerque, NM USA
Joined Sep 2003
15,850 Posts
I have only found the two sizes of liteply here in the states, 1/8 being the smallest (~3mm). For everything else you have to go to std ply.

charlie
portablevcb is offline Find More Posts by portablevcb
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 08, 2006, 02:55 AM
Registered User
Norfolk, England
Joined Sep 2001
7,760 Posts
Chris,
Just as soon as they standardise material , I'll standardise the materials I list on the plan. I guess I could go all metric, but the wood in the UK only uses metric as a back-up measurement (to comply with EEC regulations). To all intents and purposes, it's still 1/32, 1/16, 3/32, etc for balsa and birch ply with liteply being available in 2mm or 3 mm. If you can get 1/16 liteply, use that, tell everyone else where they can get it and I'll use it on future drawings. Until then, I'm afraid it will be 2mm liteply.

Yes, the u/c should be 16swg. It is on the heavy side, but will avoid the landing problems that I had with the larger model - the wheels coming up and tangling with the rigging. At least it's weight where you need it - in front of the balance point.

Pete
PETERRAKE is offline Find More Posts by PETERRAKE
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 08, 2006, 03:12 AM
North East England
Joined Feb 2004
3,181 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PETERRAKE
...to all intents and purposes, it's still 1/32, 1/16, 3/32, etc for balsa and birch ply
And long may it remain so! I'm no fan of this metric nonsense (though I'll work in millimetres when doing a bit of railroad modelling, as everything is geared to metric anyway).

If someone says 'this model has a wingspan of 40" then I have an immediate mental picture of the size, but if it says 'wingspan 1016mm' then I haven't a clue.

Yes, I do realise this means I'm old

Steve
Redbaron25 is offline Find More Posts by Redbaron25
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 08, 2006, 03:23 AM
Heli Bouncer
Looooeeee!'s Avatar
At the Discount Clambake
Joined Feb 2001
3,925 Posts
You would hate working with Metasequoia and FMS .PAR files. My .PAR conversion jobs give me migraine headaches.
Looooeeee! is offline Find More Posts by Looooeeee!
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 08, 2006, 05:59 PM
No Wind
65Chevelle's Avatar
Long Island
Joined Jul 2006
292 Posts
Charlie: I have to ask, is aircraft ply (as stated by Midwest products) liteply?

Thanks Pete.
As for as the lite ply, I can't find 2mm locally. The closest thickness of any ply that I can find is 1/16 basswood. Not even 1/16 standard ply.
The only reason I brought it up was that on my Scout plans you show 1/16 lite ply, not 2mm. I thought that you would want to keep units consistent. Either all metric or all english units (like the Scout). Is the 1/16 basswood sufficient?
At work we went to metric about 5 years ago. Still can't get used to it. From what I hear we will be going back to english units within the next few years. Thank heaven for my conversion calculator.
Sorry to bother ya Peter.
Chris
65Chevelle is offline Find More Posts by 65Chevelle
Last edited by 65Chevelle; Sep 08, 2006 at 06:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 08, 2006, 06:28 PM
Registered User
Norfolk, England
Joined Sep 2001
7,760 Posts
Chris,
No bother mate. When I drew up the Scout, I'd bought stuff sold as 1/16 liteply - only to find out later that it was actually 2mm.
For those few parts, yes, 1/16 bass should be fine. You could also laminate 1/16 balsa and 1/64 ply for much the same effect.

Not 100% sure mate but I would imagine aircraft ply is what we call birch ply - very hard. That's the stuff you want for the control horns.

Pete
PETERRAKE is offline Find More Posts by PETERRAKE
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 08, 2006, 06:33 PM
No Wind
65Chevelle's Avatar
Long Island
Joined Jul 2006
292 Posts
Great. Thats it then.
The aircraft ply I purchased is birch.
The UC soldering is kind of fun. At least so far.
Onward.
Chris
65Chevelle is offline Find More Posts by 65Chevelle
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 08, 2006, 06:45 PM
Neophyte hacker
portablevcb's Avatar
Albuquerque, NM USA
Joined Sep 2003
15,850 Posts
I buy my ply from National Balsa, another small business, and they have great service. Only 1/4 and 1/8 is offered as liteply. Birch is std ply and comes in all kinds of sizes.

charlie
portablevcb is offline Find More Posts by portablevcb
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Build Log Peter Rake IPS Farman Sport monoplane Woodbutcher Scale Kit/Scratch Built 123 Mar 12, 2009 06:33 PM
Discussion Peter Rake IPS size SE5a Greg Knipp Scale Kit/Scratch Built 113 Sep 24, 2007 06:26 AM
Build Log Yet another Peter Rake IPS design! Pat Lynch Scale Kit/Scratch Built 103 Jul 24, 2007 10:22 AM
Discussion Peter Rake IPS Nieuport N11 scrubs Scale Kit/Scratch Built 53 Jun 21, 2007 09:19 AM
Peter Rake IPS Sopwith Pup build! Trizza Scale Kit/Scratch Built 58 Jan 29, 2004 09:46 AM